list_processes

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations already declare read-only, idempotent, non-destructive and openWorld, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely new behavior: policy-blocked processes are omitted and the hidden count is reported so an absent target is distinguishable from a process that is not running, plus the cap enforced via server_info().limits.max_page_size.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Front-loads the one-line purpose, then parameter semantics, then an important behavioral caveat. Slightly verbose in the name_filter aside and carries reStructuredText ':param' residue from the source docstring, but no sentence is filler.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

All three parameters are explained, the filtering behavior and its side effect on visible results are disclosed, and an output schema exists so return structure need not be re-documented. An agent has everything needed to call and correctly interpret this tool.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description carries the full burden and does so thoroughly: name_filter is a case-insensitive substring match, limit is capped at the server's max page size, and offset is framed as a paging control for reaching entries past the first page.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

States a specific verb (List), resource (running processes) and a distinguishing scope qualifier ('this server is allowed to open'). That scope cleanly separates it from siblings like process_info, open_process and list_memory_regions, which operate on a single process rather than enumerating available ones.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

Gives real usage steering for name_filter ('Use it — an unfiltered list on a desktop is several hundred entries of pure noise') and explains paging intent for offset. It never explicitly states when to reach for this tool over alternatives such as process_info or open_process, so it stops short of a full 5.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.